Article Tools

Santa Barbara city officials strenuously objected to a federal proposal to designate a 1.8-mile stretch of the downtown waterfront—ranging from the Bird Refuge to West Beach—as critical habitat for the snowy plover—a migratory shore bird on the federal endangered species list, arguing such a decision could have potentially devastating consequences for the city’s multimillion-dollar tourist trade. “We do not agree that the heavily urbanized Santa Barbara waterfront is the appropriate location for proactive efforts for recovery of this species,” wrote City Planner Bettie Weiss in a letter sent to Fish and Wildlife Service officials last week.

In her letter, Weiss pointed out that the waterfront—now home to a working harbor, two volleyball arenas, a bike path, a weekly art show, and all kinds of special events—draws more than one million visitors annually. This traffic, in turn, fuels an economic engine that churns out $12 million a year for City Hall in the form of various taxes—roughly one-eighth the city’s General Fund. “Many of the activities supporting species recovery,” Weiss wrote, “would directly conflict with the existing urban and recreational land uses on the waterfront,” adding, “it would be extremely difficult to possibly restrict access to hundreds of thousands of beach goers a year.”

The Fish and Wildlife Service included Santa Barbara’s waterfront as critical habitat in March as part of an expansive new recovery plan to improve the snowy plover’s chances of reproductive survival. The new plan, which encompasses the Pacific Coast from the top of Washington to the bottom of California, is more than twice as big as the previous plan—discarded in the face of a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity. A substantial part of that gain was included to compensate for the loss of habitat anticipated because of climate change. That’s certainly a first for Santa Barbara County. And, according to Jim Watkins of the Fish and Wildlife Service, it might be a first anywhere. The new map was drawn anticipating that sea levels along the Pacific could rise anywhere from one to three meters by the end of the century. Watkins added that only a portion of the expansion can be attributed to climate change. The rest, he said, resulted from improved mapping techniques.

The actual impact of such a designation remains the subject of intense speculation. No one knows for sure exactly what it would mean. Fish and Wildlife officials stressed that if it’s approved—it remains only a proposal at this point—no land would be closed off, no legal activities shut down. Brian Trautwein with the Environmental Defense Center lauded the plan, predicting it might promote a boom in the eco-tourism industry. Christina Sandoval, the biologist who runs UCSB’s Coal Oil Point Reserve by the Devereux Slough where snowy plovers have made a dramatic comeback, said she heard many of the same warnings when the reserve was still in its infancy. None of those warnings, she added, have been borne out, and the beach remains open to everyone. Today, she said a section of the beach is closed off to protect the snowy plovers’ breeding and nesting there, but the rest of the beach also remains intensely used by UCSB students and Isla Vista residents.

How best to protect the Snowy Plover on our waterfront?

A critical habitat designation would undoubtedly formalize an additional layer of regulatory oversight of a host of activities that now occur along the waterfront that require federal permits. For example, the city’s annual dredging program—required to keep the harbor from choking—needs Fish and Wildlife’s blessing to proceed. Also covered in the dredging permits are all the beach-grooming activities, storm drain outlet maintenance, and even the relocation of lifeguard towers. Beyond that, Fish and Wildlife has to sign off on flood control plans for Mission Creek, a proposal to expand and reconfigure the waterfront lagoon, and designs for a new bridge across Cabrillo Boulevard. Should the proposed designation be approved, it could affect whether the city’s traditional Fourth of July beachfront fireworks display—shot off from West Beach—can continue. Karl Treiberg, an official with the Waterfront Department, expressed doubt that the proposal would be approved. But even if it were, he said, “It’s not a de facto beach closure.” Treiberg said City Hall enjoys good working relations with Fish and Wildlife officials. In the past, he said, portions of the beach had been defined as critical habitat for the snowy plover “without onerous effect.” He added that City Hall has been accommodating the snowy plover for five years already, hiring biological consultants to check out the beaches for the threatened bird—and conducting annual counts—before raking equipment can be dispatched, for example. “We’re ahead of the curve,” he said.

For Redevelopment Agency chief Paul Casey—one of the top three administrators in City Hall—the uncertainty remains a serious cause for concern. “We’re definitely worried about it,” he said. “This is the heart of our commercial activity along the waterfront. Some people might say, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ but are they sure? Can we still have volleyball tournaments? Can we still have weddings on the beach?” Nor is he assuaged by comparisons to Devereux Beach. “Devereux is not Chase Palm Park,” he said.

A light-brown shore bird about six inches long, the Pacific snowy plover was placed on the federal government’s threatened species list in 1993. And while not so charismatic and flashy as a bald eagle or engagingly named as the red-legged frog, the plover—pronounced to rhyme with “lover”—has been no stranger to the byzantine political warfare endemic to critters on the brink of extinction. The bird migrates up and down the Pacific Coast, feasting on bugs and other tiny critters that crawl among the kelp heaps washed onshore by the tides. Drawn to areas around estuaries and lagoons, the snowy plover lays its eggs in nests little more than shallow indentations scratched lightly onto the surface of the sand. As a result, snowy plover eggs are vulnerable to a host of predators, as are the chicks once they’re hatched. (To compensate, the female doesn’t waste time tending the eggs or taking care of the young—leaving these functions to the male—but hurries off in search of new suitable mates.) Making the bird’s perch on the planet more precarious are all the usual suspects: coastal development, invasive nonnative sea grasses, dogs, cats, and birds. Beach grooming machines strip away the seaweed and kelp that accumulate upon the shore, depriving the plover of sustenance.

In 1993, biologists estimated the number of nesting “units” occupied by snowy plovers was down to 28 along the entire Pacific Coast. The plover count hovered at about 1,500. With threatened or endangered species, the real fight is over the size and scope of critical habitat, the natural real estate required for any species to come back. In 1999, Fish and Wildlife mapped out 19,500 acres up and down the coast for the plover’s restoration. But off-road motorists and dune buggy enthusiasts—many from Oceano—lobbied hard to get the number reduced, and in 2005, Fish and Wildlife obliged, reducing critical habitat down to 12,000 acres. Before the ink was dry, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) sued, charging that Julia MacDonald, then assistant director of the Department of the Interior, had intervened and short-sheeted the science at the expense of the plover. MacDonald would be accused of a host of ethical breaches involving no less than 55 endangered or threatened species; at various times she provided industry lobbyists access to internal confidential memos to help them make their case. When the CBD sued on behalf of the snowy plover in 2007, it included such allegations in its brief. The evidence would never see the light of a courtroom. With a new, more environmentally friendly administration in the White House, Fish and Wildlife quickly folded. The Pacific Legal Foundation—staunch advocates of property rights in the face of environmental regulation—would lament with disgust how Fish and Wildlife had “fallen on its sword.” To settle the lawsuit, Fish and Wildlife agreed to reexamine the issue of critical habitat for the snowy plover. And while the results aren’t everything that the Center for Biological Diversity wanted, they’re pretty close. The new proposal calls for 62 nesting units up and down the coast, and 28,000 acres instead of 12,000.

Of the three states involved in the restoration effort, California is expected to provide the most habitat. And nowhere in California are the expectations as high as they are in the tri-county swath of oceanfront running from Ventura County through Santa Barbara and into San Luis Obispo County. The species will be deemed safe from extinction if and when there are 3,000 breeding adults. Twelve hundred of those are slated for the tri-counties.

In Santa Barbara, Vandenberg Air Force Base is the site on one plover restoration effort. At UCSB’s Coal Oil Point—where there are 50 determined docents trained to keep sunbathers from encroaching on the dunes—the campaign is more popularly understood. When that program started 10 years ago, there were no nesting plovers at all; now there are 25 pairs. Over a 10-year period, Christina Sandoval has counted a total of 500 nests. During non-nesting times, the maximum number of visiting snowy plovers there ranges from 100 to a high of 450. Along the city’s East Beach waterfront, as many as 111 snowy plovers have been counted in one year. None there were nesting. They were foraging for food. But according to biologists with Fish and Wildlife, foraging stations play a crucial role, especially for birds on the move. None, by contrast, have been counted at West Beach. And only one pair has ever been found on the waterfront. That was 2005 on the sand spit in the harbor. Their presence caused quite a commotion. For the birders and environmentalists, it was cause for celebration. For those trying to manage waterfront operations, it was a temporary hardship. “We closed it down for several months, but it’s an isolated location and relatively easy to close,” said Karl Treiberg. “Try closing down East Beach. We’re talking hundreds of thousands of people.” Treiberg expressed confidence it will never come to that, but in the meantime, he’ll be talking to his counterparts at Fish and Wildlife.

The comment period for the proposed revised critical habitat plan closed last week. The Fish and Wildlife Service has until June 12 next year to make a decision.

A little garlic butter with a white wine reduction make for a delicious plover appetizer. Does that beach allow unleashed dogs? Sure, another example of going way overboard to the detrement of beach users and our local economy. I'm sure EDC would love to see this beach closed to all users. That would be consistent with letting Goleta Beach wash away as well. Tell you what, let's abandon Santa Barbara and the coastline and let it all go back to nature.

"Squaking"?? But as for s-words, why is Garden Street czarina Bettie Weiss squalling to the state department of Fish and Wildlife? Isn't this Waterfront jurisdiction? What possible harm can there be in a designation of species of concern, the Snowy Plover, calling attention to the importance of its habitat! Education, even if simple awareness, is good, and that learning/paying attention to the kelp-sand fly-food supply of the tiny birds is what this is about.

Pity, though, that publicity was not given to this before closure of public comments. Ms. Weiss does not speak for all the city of Santa Barbara.

This all is a repeat of the first critical habitat designation back in the 1990s. Same freaking-out by the city staff and the anti-government freaks, some of whom are still commenting here, I see. At least a few people like Treiberg can remember that far back. Paul Casey and his staff to not have to get dumb all of a sudden just because some of the city council members are dumb.

The beaches are mostly critical habitat already and life, and fireworks, went on. If the city was smart, the leashless dog zone east of Arroyo Burro Beach would be shrunk as a mitigation deal for more beach activity at East Beach and West Beach.

Unless the Twiins plan to come back and ruin the beach again, this will not be a problem and the city will deal with it all as before. But look for Fransisco and Self to ramp up their usual fearmongering campaign as a distraction from how they want to spend out the fiscal reserves or pave over the whole city with more car parking lots.

My dog and I have a right to exist here as well. I will continue to let my dog off leash wherever I please. I'm sorry folks, call me as you like, I just don't frickin care! Meanwhile as I drive down the freeway I see this environmentalist (by means of all her bumper stickers) inserting headphones in her ears and staring down, picking songs on her i-pod, she then proceeds to get out a large book and set it on her steering wheel as she scoots down the fast lane going 62 and ignoring everything around her. Hipocrits exist everywhere! Everything is slowy going downhill, breath the air, love your neighbor, and don't sweat the details!

Over-reach on a small but highly visible thing, fostering popular backlash on many more important things, leading to even greater harm to the environment in the end. Do environmentalists do politics? If this designation means nothing, then why propose it and incur the fallout? Why waste the political capital on this?

And it's really kind of ridiculous to do habitat mitigations now, for -potential-, -possible-, -maybe- habitat degradation that is predicted to accumulate over the coming hundred years. Better to slow that down via bigger initiatives on climate ... but oh, wait a minute ... you just made that harder, by damaging the brand and appearing to be loons, if not plovers!

So the argument by Riceman is that because an "environmentalist" is distracted while driving on the freeway, then others, like Riceman, are fully justified to violate existing law to let his dog harass endangered birds and presumably leave his dog crap in the ocean for a surfer to ingest?

Environmentalism gone over-board! This is a @#$%& urban area, not some critical habitat. If a bird is stupid enough to be trying to set up shop in a clearly established urban environment, then that's what you call survival of the fittest. Why not trap and transport them to unspoiled habitats? They'll have a better chance there anyway. I'm soooo tired of this type of crap... there are so many other pressing environmental issues to deal with. Reality check please!

Please, your whining is causing me to have a sore stomach. WHY should SB Beaches be ANY different than ALL the other beaches?? Why is it OK to close someone else's beach but not SB's? Liberals are always good to go unless it affects them and their backyard. Close it down so all the liberal goobers can take a taste of their own medicine...... Brahahahah

@DaveT, Thanks for the intelligent observation. I am amazed at the comments by the ignorant and uniformed hacks.

1. Plovers make their nest above the High Tide Line, in dry sand, deep beaches.

2. The beach between East Arroyo Burro Beach and Ledbetter Point, during nesting season, the high tide goes to the base of the Palisades each and everyday – NO GO.

3. The beach East of Ledbetter Point to the end of East Beach is a Man Made deep beach.

4. Ventura County has natural deep beaches South of the Ventura River to Mugu Rock.

5. Santa Barbara County has natural deep beaches North of Point Conception.

6. Lets be real Environmentalists and restore Southern California to its once Pristine Beauty, pre 1933. Tear down all the dams on the Santa Clara, Ventura, Santa Ynez and Santa Maria Rivers – I love Salmon. Lets restore the once Beautiful Gulf of California, tear down the dams on the Colorado River.

7. Oh, wait 60 million of you would have to return to the East – but do it for the children, do it for the West, do it for Nature.

8. Environmentalists speak with forked tongues – you are just as much the disease as everyone else. There is blood on your hands every time you flush or shower.

The real problem is the dogs. They are the most aggressive destroyers of plover habitat, and they mess up the beach for people, too. All we have to do is ban dogs from all beaches, and strictly enforce it, and we wouldn't have to restrict beach usage in any other way.

The city shouldn't have to lose a dime of tourist revenue over this. Tourists don't bring dogs to the beach, its the selfish, irresponsible residents who let their dogs run unleashed and mess it up for everybody else. We'd probably get more tourist business if we banned dogs, because it would make the tourist's experience here more pleasant.

One dog owner posted above that he and his dog have a right to exist too. Yes, you have a right to exist, but not to encroach. And your selfish and irresponsible misuse of the beach by you and your dog constitutes encroachment on an otherwise clean and peaceful environment that provides habitat for wildlife and recreation for people, and both of those purposes can be served simultaneously if we just get rid of the dogs.

The real problem is Carpetbagging Yankees. They are the most aggressive destroyers of plover habitat, and they mess up the beach for the seals, too. All we have to do is ban Yankees from all California, and strictly enforce it, and we wouldn't have to restrict beach usage in any other way.

The city shouldn't have to lose a dime of tourist revenue over this. Tourists don't use the beach, its the selfish, irresponsible Yankee residents who use the beach and mess it up for everybody else. We'd probably get more tourist business if we banned Yankees, because it would make the tourist's experience here more pleasant, once the 1933 Projects were torn down and the salmon could run up stream and spawn again. Think of the tourist fishing industry that would be created.

One Yankee posted above that he has a right to exist too. Yes, you have a right to exist, but not to encroach. And your selfish and irresponsible misuse of water and the damming of rivers by you and your Yankee friends constitutes encroachment on an otherwise clean and peaceful environment that provides habitat for wildlife, and both of those purposes can be served simultaneously if we just get rid of the Yankees and their 1933 Water Projects.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! THAT WAS FUNNY!!!!!!! Actually, it's a great idea, but enforcing it would run into some logistical problems, such as distinguishing Yankee carpetbaggers from non-Yankee carpetbaggers. You'd also have the problem of discrimination against different types of carpetbaggers. For example, would Mexican carpetbaggers be OK but Yankee carpetbaggers not OK?

The People in SB should look into the damage done to Lompocs locals and their Beach just below the train stop. It is a shame to see such a beautiful beach off-limit in all but the coldest months of the yr. The control of the Beach is under the Air Force at Vandenberg, making sure that it will never be returned for either the locals or the tourists anytime soon. BTW in the last 40 trips to pick someone up or down them off, I have not seen a single Plover, Adult or babies. That is a time period of about 6 yrs or so.

Another interesting dilemma with City, State, and federal agency's overlapping on East Beach. The Fed's are the ones who are transporting the slug from the harbor bottom and transporting it to East Beach, dragging all of that pipe around and using the big Cat bulldozers. Ironic too, is that they used to block Mission Creek with that same pipe, now trestled over. Now they will have to modify all of that work.

The City loves to be the Environmental ambassador until $ gets in the way. It's the dirtiest beach on the coast and they still send the hotel guest there w/o warning them of the risks.

The irony is that the Fed's go after the most publicly used beaches. Coal Oil Point, Surf Beach, Heck I wonder what will happen if they find one at Goleta Beach. What about all the beaches along Hope Ranch? Point Dume? Between Summerland and Carp? The Hollister Ranch where you can drive a Truck on the beach? Also, I recall and article in the Independent a couple years ago about two nesting pairs on the Sandspit. "Bad news today as a crow came down and ate both the babies in one of the nests..." I think there is way too much action around here to even hope to reestablish a habitat for such a timid and fragile bird. Go look for a quieter less accessible beach to shut down.

Really! What a bunch of ignorant, self-centered comments. I'd have more respect for your opinions if you knew what you are talking about. How many of you even know what a Snowy Plover looks like on the beach? For SmileySam on Surf: The beach would remain open if people would stay out of the fenced off areas. There is a huge area open for recreation, but after 50 or so trespassers, the military shuts down THEIR beach. And no, I don't suppose you'd notice a Snowy from the train tracks--they live and die by being camouflaged, and match the sand. Critical habitat can be as simple as a place for migrants to rest and feed. And NO, they wouldn't nest at Hendry's...they don't like cliffs, which is why low beaches like Coal Oil Reserve and Vandenberg are so important. Dogs off leash are not only detrimental to Snowy Plovers, but they are a menace to all shorebirds. They chase them and make them unnecessarily expend fat reserves. They keep them from feeding areas, and cause mayhem between chicks and parents. Dogs on leash can coexist with most of us, except people afraid of dogs. Share the planet responsibly...it's not yours alone. Be informed, and leash your dog. It's not a matter of who dictates what your dog should do...it's a matter of how you impact the world. Oh, and it IS illegal to have your dog off leash at Goleta Beach, Ellwood and East Beach. It's a county law.